prove me wrong on evolution

[murdocsvan]

ok does anyone want to quiz me on evolution and see if they can stump me?



good luck

 

[Abram]

why? so you can show us how smart you are. Do you perfer macro evolution or micro evolution?

 

[murdocsvan]

why? so you can show us how smart you are. Do you perfer macro evolution or micro evolution?

no need for spiteful comments abram.

and yes, i'm going to be confident that evolution has such a strong case of creationism.

and i choose macro evolution, even though both micro and macro have the same principles of the strongest surviving

 

[Abram]

and yes, i'm going to be reeaaally arrogant because im confident that evolution has such a strong case of creationism.

and i choose macro evolution, even though both micro and macro have the same principles of the strongest surviving

I agree with you and I will sit here and help you debate this. But you must be new here because your about to meet the smartest evolution/naturalist anti-God crowd you can find. I've been on a forum break for a month now just to read up on this subject. Funny how God works

So I hope your ready, keep your cool and get away when you get mad it will only make you look like a fool. I know from experience

 

[murdocsvan]

advice taken. but that's a shame, because i am pro evolution and it looks like no one is going to challenge me

 

[Abram]

advice taken. but that's a shame, because i am pro evolution and it looks like no one is going to challenge me

there's a ton of forums on every aspect you could dream of talking about. As for this thread, come back to it in a day, theres someone who will want to test you.

 

[murdocsvan]

there's a ton of forums on every aspect you could dream of talking about. As for this thread, come back to it in a day, theres someone who will want to test you.

i am intrigued and i am looking forward to that

 

[Green Gaia]

Quit posturing and debate.

 

[Atheist_Dave]

What is the point in this thread at all? Are you seeking validation for your knowledge of evolution because you lack in other areas? Like a personality maybe? I can assure you most people on here are going to make you look very silly if you come on saying you know everything.

Peace x

 

[Faint]

both micro and macro have the same principles of the strongest surviving

You're off to a bad start...should have said fittest. Fitness does not necessarily have to do with a species' strength. But considering I'm "pro evolution" also, I guess I'm not the one to debate you on this.

 

[St0ne]

I'm on the side of evolution too but just to get things started I'll give you a question I already know has a good explanation.

The human eye, how can something so perfect and complicated have evolved out something so simple as a single celled organism? Isn't such a perfect\complicated design that even science can't understand evidence of intelligent design?

 

[murdocsvan]

Well it’s easy to say ‘how can something so complicated as ourselves evolve from a single celled organism.’ But if you put into perspective how long it was since we we’re single celled organisms, you wouldn’t find it so spooky.

As for your question…

Between now and when we we’re SCO’s, we developed light sensitive cells. These would evolve, and the more light sensitive cells we develop, the better we came adapted to seeing predators and thus avoiding them.

Besides we are not the only creature with complicated eyes. If you look at a diagram of a shrimp’s eyes, you would see we are quite far behind.

Someone’s told me that somewhere a computer program which replicated evolution has been developed. It starts with a single light sensitive cell and once it has developed (not to its maximum extent) it creates something not far off a human eye

This is just speculation; I don’t know if what I’m saying is true. But like all science, a fact without evidence is a theory until proven different.

 

[Steve]

Between now and when we we’re SCO’s, we developed light sensitive cells.

How?

These would evolve, and the more light sensitive cells we develop,

How?

the better we came adapted to seeing predators and thus avoiding them.

this last part really dosnt mean anything, it just says if you dont have the "primitive eyes" which just "developed" then you are more likly to die - it does nothing in explaining how the "primitive eyes" came to exist in the first place.

Besides we are not the only creature with complicated eyes. If you look at a diagram of a shrimp’s eyes, you would see we are quite far behind.

And this information helps evolution how? It is rather a problem because instead of just having to account for how human eyes could come into existance but you also have to believe that a shrimps eye also evolved independently into a very complex device.

 

[Bangbang]

Besides we are not the only creature with complicated eyes. If you look at a diagram of a shrimp’s eyes, you would see we are quite far behind.

Yes ...we are "behind" and the genes associated with poor eye sight continue to be passed on to future generations because we use eyeglasses,contact lenses,and surgery to correct the pooe eye sight. Should people with poor eye sight be allowed to reproduce?

I was going to enter a debate with you just for fun but I just can't do it. No what I mean?

 

[Bangbang]

Oh....why not....:biglaugh: Read this.

Here's how you can refute evolution in one minute flat.
We guarantee it.

Best arguments against evolution?

Evolutionists do not have solid support from science when they say everything has “evolved”.

In fact, evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three of the biggest problems in the universe.

Problem No. 1

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

Problem No. 2

No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.

Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

Problem No. 3

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths simply do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.

 

[murdocsvan]

Steve,

i would like to continue this debate with you and you alone.

as in reply to your questions

1) we developed light sensitive cells through freak mutations. ever seen a baby with a 2 legs joined together? believe me the freaks are out there, but their not all bad

2) once we have a light sensitive cell, If it was an advantage, then it would have a mucho higher chance of survival compared to the rest of the race, and as long as it has a chance to reproduce or a situation arises where it can prove itself to be better, then it dilutes the gene pool.

so once we have one, another freak may occur which means they have 2 light sensitive cells and so on...

im sorry i shouldn't have put 'develop' its the wrong word

3) if you are able to see a predator and another one of your species isn't, and you have a chance to run, who do you think is going to survive?

4) i am not asking you to believe in shrimps eyes, im asking you to see that we aren't the only animals with complicate eyes. this doesnt prove my point, but what does is the fact that we've been around so long it's not such a crazy idea that we had time to evolve these eyes.

and answer me this

why don't we have better eyes than other animals if we we're put here to protect all things bright and beutiful?

 

[john63]

advice taken. but that's a shame, because i am pro evolution and it looks like no one is going to challenge me

The greatest minds in the world have debated this to death and niether side has ever been able to prove the other wrong, so what makes you think anyone here can prove you wrong?

 

[john63]

Steve,

i would like to continue this debate with you and you alone.

Haha! Bangbang comes up with a brilliant post and all of a sudden Mr. Darwin here doesn't want to debate anyone but Steve. :biglaugh:

 

[mingmty]

creationists seems to ignore that Creationism isn't science.

A scientific theory must predict events and must leave room for failure. for example Newton's laws predicted movement accurately, they could be tested over and over again in a laboratory but there was space for failure there, in the laboratory. If they failed to predict something precisely then an exception was recorded and new scientific theories emerged which would be put to test in the laboratory to see if not only this exceptions where predicted but also all the phenomena predicted by Newton. Particularly one theory did this and we know it as Quantum Mechanics.

Returning to evolution, evolution predicts future events, evolution can be tested in labs and most importantly evolution leaves space for failure. Creationism doesn't predict anything, creationism can't be tested in lab and creationism doesn't leave space for failure since all can be "his will". As with fossil records which supposedly put our fate at test, which is ridiculous, if we take this as a scientific true then everything can be a test and nothing would be real, welcome to the dark ages.

Creationism is theology and it should stay there, not only for the theory itself but for the approach.

 

[mingmty]

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Wrong! Remember E=mc^2? that means that the sum of mass and energy in the universe is always the same. It is all energy, all mass or a combination of both which sum is equal. Science never said that the universe started from nothing, maybe from energy but not from nothing, and there you have room for evolution.

Seems that the only problem is that you don't understand science.

No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.

What is life? where does it start? where does your atoms are no longer non-live and start being alive? If you define live as organic tissues then life was there even before living creatures. Sorry but you need to study a little about science and the scientific approach, what you are saying has nothing to do with science which explains the "how" not the "why". Stay in theology and leave science alone.

But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths simply do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

The most common Creationist mistake, organisms do not evolve from a complex organism to another complex organism, a living creature evolves from simple to complex, a chimp may never mutate into a whale but as amazing as it sounds (to you) they have a common ancestor.

You don't understand science and are not well learned to see how is different from your faith approached beliefs.